role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

November 21, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Nov-21 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 21 November 2006 Mardi 21 novembre 2006

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

COMMUNITY LIVING OAKVILLE

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

CHILDREN'S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

SKILLS TRAINING FOR

ABUSED WOMEN

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

HYDRO REBATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS

OF CRIME AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'INDEMNISATION

DES VICTIMES D'ACTES CRIMINELS

MOTIONS

TIME ALLOCATION

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HYDRO REBATES

ONTARIO FRANCOPHONIE AWARDS /

PRIX DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

DE L'ONTARIO

HEALTH PROMOTION /

PROMOTION DE LA SANTÉ

ONTARIO FRANCOPHONIE AWARDS

PRIX DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

DE L'ONTARIO

RÉDUCTION DES COÛTS D'ÉLECTRICITÉ /

HYDRO REBATES

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

CHILD POVERTY

PUBLIC HEALTH

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

HOSPITAL GOVERNANCE

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

PETITIONS

HEALTH PREMIUMS

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

MACULAR DEGENERATION

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

PROSTATE CANCER

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

HIGHWAY 26

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

SCHOOL FACILITIES

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER /

RAPPORT, COMMISSAIRE À L'INTÉGRITÉ

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): The decision by the McGuinty Liberals to invoke closure on Bill 107 committee hearings is an undemocratic and draconian dismissal of conscientious criticism that groups representing concerned, vulnerable Ontarians had expected and deserved to bring forward.

The McGuinty Liberals' decision to prevent these and many others from expressing their views on human rights is neither democratic nor respectful of their rights as citizens and as stakeholders on this important issue. If this is the Liberal agenda for democratic renewal, then the very foundation of our parliamentary democracy and legislative traditions are in serious jeopardy indeed.

The people of Ontario are watching this process, and they will judge the McGuinty Liberal government accordingly.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry–Prescott—Russell): I would like to tell you today about how Ontarians are gaining access to drugs faster and at lower costs. On June 20, the McGuinty government passed the Transparent Drug System for Patients Act. This legislation will create a stronger, more effective and patient-focused drug system for Ontarians.

Part of our plan includes the provincial government becoming the second-in-line payer for the federal public service health care plan and for working seniors with private insurance plans. This may sound complicated, but what it really means is that the federal plan will be the first to pay for the cost of their retirees' prescription drugs, and the ODB will cover the rest. There is no net cost to the pensioners for drugs covered by the ODB. In fact, the federal government covers a broader array of drugs than the provincial plan.

We also support plans by the federal government to introduce a drug benefit card for its public servants, just as we have with the Ontario drug benefit. This will eliminate any paperwork required by federal public service pensioners, even with our changes.

We are surprised that John Baird is suddenly not in support of provinces getting their fair share. As a former provincial cabinet minister, we would expect more from him. The citizens of his Ottawa West—Nepean riding, many of whom are retired federal employees, certainly expect more from their --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean—Carleton): The McGuinty Liberals have spent $106,000 to advertise public hearings that won't now take place because they don't think it is important for MPPs to hear from the people.

I'm speaking out on behalf of the people when the McGuinty government has decided to shut out of the debate on Bill 107, the human rights act. The following people are:

-- Emily Noble, president of the Elementary Teachers' Federation;

-- Noulmook Sutdhibhaslip of Asian Community AIDS Services;

-- Marilyn Oladimeji of the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres;

-- John Argue of the Ontario Coalition for Social Justice;

-- Raj Dhaliwal of the Canadian Auto Workers;

-- Maria York of the Canadian Institute of Workers;

-- Barbara Anello and Lina Anani of the Disabled Women's Network.

The people won't be heard. The McGuinty government, by arbitrarily deciding to prevent them from testifying at public hearings, has just told these people and organizations, as well as approximately 200 others, that it doesn't care what they have to say. We on the Conservative side of the Legislature are appalled by that. We believe that Bill 107 should be open to public consultation and that the people of Ontario have a right to be heard. We will be doing everything we possibly can to make sure that that is the case.

COMMUNITY LIVING OAKVILLE

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): I've got a good-news announcement today. I stand before the House to recognize an organization that has played an important role for individuals with challenges who live in Oakville.

Community Living Oakville is a self-advocacy organization that firmly believes, as we all do, that every member of our society has a right to live a meaningful and dignified life within their community. To that end, Community Living provides families and individuals with the tools necessary to ensure they can live independently and participate fully.

Recently, at the fifth annual veterans appreciation luncheon hosted by MEDIChair, a local Oakville company owned by Kristen and David Courtney, I had the pleasure of presenting a certificate of appreciation to World War II veteran and founder of Community Living Oakville, Mr. Roy Keller.

Community Living has done amazing work in my riding, including promoting local businesses to provide employment to individuals who could really benefit from that experience. I'm a proud supporter of this program. Since my election in 2003, I've had the privilege of having Mr. Steven Muir working in my constituency office in Oakville. He has proven to be a fantastic addition to the Oakville team. Today I'm proud to also welcome to the House, along with Mr. Muir, four other members of Community Living: Catharine Thomson, Kim Schrochonk, Kerry Bat and Tony Garcia. Please give them a warm welcome.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): The McGuinty Liberals have decided that they know better than the people and the groups who deal with human rights concerns on an ongoing basis. Today, the McGuinty Liberals plan to shut their ears and muzzle anything the following groups may have to say about human rights:

-- Orville Endicott and Dawn Roper of Community Living Ontario;

-- Nancy Schular and Seema Shaw of the Ontario Disability Support Plan Action Coalition;

-- Malcolm Buchanan of Civil Rights in Public Education Inc.;

-- Steven Adler of the Canadian Jewish Congress;

-- Rosalyn Forrester of Canadian Transsexuals Fight for Rights.

These are among the 200 people who thought they would have a chance to share their experiences, insight, concerns, criticisms and suggestions, some of whom have already been scheduled to speak.

In fact, the Liberal government spent $160,000 to advertise for people to appear at hearings. They spent staff time scheduling these meetings. Now the McGuinty Liberals, if they proceed with cutting off public hearings on Bill 107 prematurely, are telling these people and many more to go away. The McGuinty government doesn't think they have anything worth saying.

Every member of the McGuinty caucus should be ashamed of themselves. Many people whose voices are being ignored are in the gallery today. If you have any integrity left, you will publicly apologize to them and withdraw your closure motion.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Order. Member for Oxford. Minister of Education.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Simcoe North. The member for Oak Ridges.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Oak Ridges will come to order.

The member for Hamilton East.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL

HEALTH SERVICES

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): This morning, Children's Mental Health Ontario was here at Queen's Park trying to get the ear of members to talk about the dire straits that children with mental health problems and the agencies that serve them are in. It is no surprise that the challenges in children's mental health are becoming more severe and the problems more acute, having had no base funding increase in that sector for 14 years.

Next week, the McGuinty government will be unveiling its policy framework document for the future of children's mental health in Ontario. It's at least a year overdue, but many were holding out hope that it would offer greater support to the children with mental health issues, their families, caregivers and service providers.

This morning, the frustration and helplessness these agencies are feeling was palpable. Unless the McGuinty Liberals back up their policy framework with the resources to fund children's mental health services appropriately, helping children overcome their difficulties will be as challenging as ever. There are compelling reasons for ending the funding deep-freeze. Funding these agencies appropriately means preventing problems in our troubled children and youth from spinning out of control.

It means early enough intervention that kids don't end up in places where nobody wants to see them, like on a coroner's slab, for example, or stuck in the spiral of the criminal justice system as young people.

Today, as mental health agencies have clearly made their case for increased support, I say to the McGuinty government, quit starving these agencies and quit pretending that better coordination is going to solve everything. Everyone knows that resources for programs and treatment are what will make a difference in these children's lives. Preventative action is essential. Better funding will be a step forward that has been a long time in coming. Anything else continues to erode services, close beds and forsake our fragile children.

SKILLS TRAINING FOR

ABUSED WOMEN

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): Yesterday, my community received some very good news as the minister responsible for women's issues, Sandra Pupatello, announced a $4-million training program that will help women who have experienced or are at risk of experiencing domestic violence find employment.

As part of that announcement, the minister advised that the Nipissing First Nation, as the lead agency in my area, will receive $500,000 to help 60 women, including aboriginal women, women with disabilities and women from rural and isolated communities. I am delighted that the Nipissing First Nation has taken the lead on this and that they have been chosen as one of 10 pilot projects across the province.

Yesterday's announcement will provide the tools to the women of Nipissing who want to rebuild their lives by seeking freedom from an abusive situation. This new program will offer them education and training to find jobs that will put them on the road to financial independence.

Each program has been developed through a partnership with three different sectors: a violence-against-women group, a training organization and an employer. In our area, we have a number of partners that have signed on to this great initiative: Canadore College, YES Employment Services, Disability Employment Opportunities Committee, Ojibway Family Resource Centre, People for Equal Partnership in Mental Health, Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, the OPP and Tembec, as well as all of our women's shelters in the district. The funding will allow these great partners to provide much-needed services in our community.

This summer, Madeleine Meilleur, minister of Community and Social Services, and I visited the Ojibway Family Resource Centre and were very impressed with the services they provide. This initiative will give them one more tool to help the women they are helping --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you.

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): I rise in the House today to talk about the McGuinty government's record on public infrastructure renewal. This government recognizes the payoffs that come out of investing in Ontario's infrastructure, which means long-term investment in Ontario's future.

Through ReNew Ontario, the McGuinty government is investing more than $30 billion in revitalizing Ontario's infrastructure over the next five years. This is in direct contrast to the previous government, which for years downloaded costs for infrastructure maintenance onto municipalities and left our province in dire disrepair, way behind in keeping up our systems in a functional and responsible way.

This government also understands that health care is another area that requires forward thinking in terms of infrastructure investment and, as a result, has worked to develop plans for 105 health care projects which will see $5 billion worth of investments over the five years.

I'm happy to say that the rebuilding of West Lincoln Memorial Hospital in Grimsby, in my riding, is part of that project. It's something the community worked very, very hard, first of all, to keep their hospital from being closed under the previous government, and second, to have it rebuilt, and our government is moving forward with that.

We also have the Places to Grow Act, which helps give municipalities a framework for sustainable development. I want to point out that the sorts of investments we have taken

part in show long-term vision. We are not just about the next election; we're looking way out for future generations' benefit.

HYDRO REBATES

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): Yesterday, I had the privilege of announcing our government's northern electricity transition program in Sault Ste. Marie on behalf of Premier McGuinty and Minister Ramsay, which is helping to support St. Marys Paper, one of the largest employers in my riding, as well as to support many other pulp and paper mills across the north with a 15% reduction in energy costs.

This investment is worth $140 million to the pulp and paper companies, the anchors of the forestry industry. The new rebate program, combined with other measures we have taken, will mean our mills' electricity costs are better than the North American average and competitive in Canada.

Here is what Ron Stern, president of St. Marys Paper had to say: "I appreciate the efforts of the province to help our industry through these very difficult times. This program will help us deal with our electricity costs and help us move towards greater electricity efficiency."

Our investments directly into forest business operations are unique. It's something that no other government, no other party, has ever done. The leader of the NDP publicly criticized our targeted energy rebate for pulp and paper companies, but when his party was in power road costs and forest inventories were downloaded to the industry, both of which we have uploaded since taking government. The NDP built no new electrical supply, paid $150 million to cancel the Manitoba power agreement, hydro rates went up 40% and 14 mills closed.

Our government has now committed over $1 billion to help the forestry industry, its workers and their families. I want to thank Premier McGuinty, Minister Ramsay and our northern members in particular for their collective support of businesses like St. Marys Paper.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS

OF CRIME AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'INDEMNISATION

DES VICTIMES D'ACTES CRIMINELS

Mr. Runciman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 160,

An Act to amend the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act / Projet de loi 160, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'indemnisation des victimes d'actes criminels.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds—Grenville): The bill touches on four areas. The primary one is the lump sum compensation for catastrophic injuries suffered by victims of crime. The catalyst for this was Louise Russo, who was the victim of a botched mob contract killing attempt. Ms. Russo regrettably was obligated, because of the shortcomings of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, to plea bargain to negotiate with members of organized crime to enable her to live in a reasonable fashion, despite the very serious injuries that she suffered.

This bill, along hopefully with the results of the Ombudsman's investigation, will better address the very serious and legitimate concerns of victims of crime in this province.

MOTIONS

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to move a motion without notice concerning this afternoon's debate on the report of the Integrity Commissioner.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Mr. Bradley has asked for unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding this afternoon's debate on the recommendation of the Integrity Commissioner. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I move that the time for the debate on the motion relating to the report of the Integrity Commissioner be apportioned equally among the recognized parties in the House; and

That at 6 p.m. the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of the motion and any amendments thereto; and

That in the case of any division required, the division bell shall be limited to 10 minutes, the members called in once and all divisions taken in succession.

The Speaker: Mr. Bradley moves that the time for the debate on the motion relating to the report of the Integrity Commissioner be apportioned equally among the recognized parties in the House; and

That at 6 p.m. the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of the motion and any amendments thereto; and

That in the case of any division required, the division bell shall be limited to 10 minutes, the members called in once and all divisions taken in succession.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HYDRO REBATES

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources, minister responsible for aboriginal affairs): Yesterday in Thunder Bay, I had the pleasure of joining Premier McGuinty to announce a program that will help Ontario's forest sector build a bridge to a more secure and energy-efficient future and a brighter outlook for the families and northern communities that depend on that sector.

Through the northern pulp and paper electricity transition program, this government is making available $140 million in electricity relief to northern pulp and paper mills over the next three years, giving the industry the time it needs to make the transition to greater energy efficiency.

This now brings our commitment to the forest sector to more than $1 billion.

Our pulp and paper sector is the largest electricity user in northern Ontario, and it is more vulnerable to rising energy costs. It has been the most affected by the circumstances of the past three years.

All communities in the north will benefit indirectly since pulp and paper mills are the anchor for the whole forestry sector. Northern pulp and paper mills that use a minimum of 50,000 megawatt hours annually will be eligible to receive rebates on the cost of their electricity retroactive to October 1 of this year. For their part, the mills receiving a rebate must commit to implementing plans to boost their energy efficiency.

We are putting this program in place to help our mills secure their future. It will effectively reduce the cost of electricity that the mills purchase by about 15% over the three years. Combined with the other measures taken by the province, this reduction will ensure our mills' electricity costs are better than the average for North America and in the middle of the pack in Canada.

This initiative has been well received by the industry. Let me share a few supportive comments from yesterday.

Ronald Stern, president and CEO of St. Marys Paper, said, "This program will help us deal with our electricity costs and move us toward greater energy efficiency."

The president and CEO of Tembec, Jim Lopez, said, "The program announced today is a significant step both in terms of closing the gap on power rates with competing jurisdictions and helping companies generate the funds that will support investments to make their mills less dependent on purchased energy."

And this from Ken Buchanan --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I need the government House leader to move. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: "This is great news for Ontario's forest sector. It helps us stay competitive. It will keep jobs in the north. This is good for our industry and a 'win' for the communities in our region. Our sawmills need pulp and paper operations to use the wood chips they produce, and this helps to ensure that."

The rebate program is the latest in a series of steps our government has taken to help the forest industry address electricity costs. Other measures include:

-- encouraging large power consumers in the forest sector to undertake self-generation power projects through our forest sector prosperity grant and loan guarantee program;

-- extending the rate cap on Ontario Power Generation's non-prescribed supply;

-- establishing a cogeneration power procurement program under the Ontario Power Authority; and

-- setting up an Ontario Power Authority program to compensate companies for load shedding and shifting during high-cost power peaks.

The forest industry is one of Ontario's most important economic engines. In addition to sales of about $18 billion and exports of approximately $9 billion, this industry provides 200,000 direct and indirect jobs across Ontario.

As the Premier said yesterday, behind these numbers are real people, real families and real hopes and dreams for the future. That is why the government is focusing like never before on the economic challenges facing Ontario's forest industry and the social impacts these challenges have had on all of our communities.

During the past year and a half, Premier McGuinty and I have announced assistance packages for the forest industry worth $900 million over five years. As I've mentioned, yesterday's announcement brings our commitment to the forest sector to more than $1 billion. This includes a five-year, $350-million loan guarantee program and a three-year, $150-million forest sector prosperity fund. These programs are aimed at leveraging new investment in a range of areas, including energy conservation and cogeneration, value-added manufacturing and more.

We have established the forest sector competitiveness secretariat to administer the forest sector prosperity fund and the loan guarantee program.

In total, my ministry's forest sector competitiveness secretariat has received 35 applications to date for funding from our prosperity fund and loan guarantee program that, if approved, would result in more than $1.2 billion in new investment in Ontario's forest sector.

We've already succeeded in leveraging tens of millions in new investment, and there is more to come. In the next few weeks, I'll be making further announcements in that regard.

This government has taken action and made great strides in putting Ontario's pulp and paper industry back on the right track. We will continue working to help the sector re-establish its competitiveness and regain a bright, prosperous future for the industry and for the people of northern Ontario.

ONTARIO FRANCOPHONIE AWARDS /

PRIX DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

DE L'ONTARIO

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Last night in Ottawa, I was delighted to take part, along with Premier Dalton McGuinty, MPPs Jean-Marc Lalonde and Phil McNeely, and over 400 guests from Ontario's francophone community, in the first ever annual Ontario Francophonie Awards ceremony.

Created by the government of Ontario as part of the celebrations for the 20th anniversary of the French Language Services Act, the Ontario Francophonie Awards honour both francophones and francophiles who have made outstanding contributions to the social, economic, political and cultural vitality of the francophone community.

Au nom du gouvernement de l'Ontario, je félicite chaleureusement les quatre lauréats de ces premiers Prix de la francophonie de l'Ontario : M me Caroline Andrew, professeure titulaire à l'École d'études politiques de l'Université d'Ottawa; M me Annie Dell, directrice régionale du Réseau de développement économique et d'employabilité de l'Ontario pour la région centre-sud-ouest; M. Gérald Savoie, président-directeur général de l'hôpital Montfort; et M. Raymond Tremblay, recteur de l'Université de Hearst.

Dès le 1 er avril 2007, j'encourage tous les Ontariens et toutes les Ontariennes à présenter des mises en candidature pour les Prix de la francophonie de l'Ontario 2007, de façon à ce que le gouvernement puisse reconnaître officiellement les réalisations exceptionnelles de certains de nos concitoyens et concitoyennes.

La création des Prix de la francophonie de l'Ontario s'ajoute à la liste déjà longue des réalisations du gouvernement McGuinty visant à renforcer la communauté francophone et à accroître l'étendue et la qualité des services offerts aux Ontariens et aux Ontariennes francophones.

Le gouvernement a aussi su innover en lançant la politique d'aménagement linguistique, un bel exemple du savoir-faire et de l'originalité de l'Ontario. La politique d'aménagement linguistique du gouvernement de l'Ontario, une première au Canada, est citée en exemple ailleurs au pays.

Dans le domaine de la santé, le gouvernement McGuinty consacre 185 $ millions à l'agrandissement de l'hôpital Montfort à Ottawa, un investissement colossal et essentiel pour l'essor de cette institution unique en Ontario.

Que dire de TFO, ce joyau de l'univers télévisuel franco-ontarien auquel le gouvernement McGuinty a décidé d'accorder la pleine gouvernance?

Il y aurait tant à dire. Cependant, je suis convaincue que les francophones de l'Ontario savent que l'engagement de notre gouvernement à l'égard de la francophonie ontarienne est réel, comme en témoigne la remise des Prix de la francophonie en Ontario.

En Ontario, la francophonie n'est pas une abstraction, grâce aux Ontariens et Ontariennes francophones qui lui donnent vie chaque jour.

Other Ontarians make it real as well, such as all the francophiles of our province who support the French fact and bring it to life through their work, their families, their daily activities and all kinds of gestures, both big and small.

Our government is determined to continue to support the vitality of this vibrant, important part of the fabric that makes up this great province of ours.

HEALTH PROMOTION /

PROMOTION DE LA SANTÉ

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Health Promotion): On this day in 1986, the very first International Conference on Health Promotion took place in Ottawa. Organized by the World Health Organization, 212 delegates representing 38 countries met to exchange experiences and share knowledge on the topic of health promotion. This event is of historic importance, and it resulted in the creation of the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion.

The Ottawa charter is significant and was named the "third public health revolution" by Dr. Lester Breslow, professor emeritus, health services, UCLA School of Public Health. The first two public health revolutions took place in the 19th and 20th centuries and were about the control of infectious disease and the battle against non-communicable diseases.

The Ottawa charter defined health promotion as "the process of enabling people to increase control over, and to improve, their health." These elements are commonly referred to as the social determinants of health and can be achieved by the following actions set out in the charter: building healthy public policy, creating supportive environments, strengthening community action, developing personnel skills, and reorienting health services.

The Ottawa charter was groundbreaking because of its progressive stance on health and health care. It encouraged governments to focus more and better address health promotion and illness prevention, and took a holistic view of public health. It is precisely this type of vision which led to the creation of Ontario's first Ministry of Health Promotion in the summer of 2005 by Premier McGuinty.

Building on the work in Ottawa 20 years ago today, subsequent international conferences have set the course for global health promotion. Results from these influential conferences have formed the basis of the Ministry of Health Promotion's mandate to encourage and support Ontarians to pursue an active, healthy life. Doing so is key to wellness and essential in improving quality of life and preventing illness. These functions now have one central home in government, which provides a natural link between the study and the application of health promotion.

Nous savons que découvrir des moyens qui inciteront les Ontariens et Ontariennes à adopter des modes de vie plus sains préviendra ou retardera l'apparition de maladies chroniques.

By doing so, we may be able to create an atmosphere of awareness of the importance of making better choices to reduce injury and illness, limiting the toll, both human and financial, that chronic disease exacts on our population.

The McGuinty government recognizes that the values of health promotion run across ministry lines, exactly as the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion envisioned. That is why the Premier created an interministerial committee on healthy living, chaired by myself and comprising representatives from 10 ministries. We are determined to improve the coordination and communication on health promotion issues, policies and programs through horizontal discussions.

In keeping with the legacy of the Ottawa charter, the Ministry of Health Promotion will host its first-ever Healthy Eating and Active Living Conference in Toronto on November 29 and 30. I'm pleased to report that, joining my parliamentary assistants, Peter Fonseca and Shafiq Qaadri, will be 600 people from across this province. They will be involved in supporting local and international health and recreational professionals, community workers and others who are striving to promote healthy eating and active living and highlighting the government's health promotion activities and progress being made on action plan deliverables.

In conclusion, the Ottawa charter has made a significant impact throughout the world on the importance of health promotion, and I am very pleased that it took place in my hometown of Ottawa 20 years ago today. By supporting and building on the charter's mandate, the Ontario government is making health promotion a priority.

If we call the Ottawa charter the "third public health revolution" on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the charter, I'm proud to declare that we are making great strides in prevention and in education on health promotion so Ontarians can live healthy, long and more active lives.

ONTARIO FRANCOPHONIE AWARDS

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds—Grenville): At the outset, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party and our leader John Tory, I want to extend congratulations to the recipients of the Francophonie awards and thank them for their contribution to the province of Ontario.

Rather than responding extensively to the statements that were made in the House by ministers, we'd like to take this limited opportunity, on behalf of the official opposition, to express our very real concerns about the way the government has opted to deal with Bill 107, the amendments to the Human Rights Act. The fact that the government last evening, to the surprise of virtually everyone in this place, and I would have to assume the members of the justice committee as well, filed a --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Order. This time is set aside for responses to statements made by the government. I'm sure the member is about to tie this statement to a statement made by one of the government ministers and I hope that he would get there quickly.

In any event, I simply think the fact that we have this time allotted to express our very serious concerns is important and that it is going to have an impact on the business of the House as we move forward. There has been a co-operative effort on behalf of all three parties. We may have concerns with respect to statements made today or with respect to other pieces of business that the government has brought forward that are currently on the order paper for this House for debate or before committees of the House.

We have attempted in a very co-operative way to work within the House leaders' meetings and beyond that, certainly, to put our views on the record and see the business of the government proceed in a reasonably timely way.

I think that has all now been put in jeopardy by the government's decision with respect to Bill 107, and it's important that I have this opportunity to put that on the record. We're approaching the end of the session, approaching the end of this year. In fact, the decision has been made, and we hope they will take a deep breath and step back from this, otherwise from our perspective we are not going to be in a position to be able to, in a constructive way, approach the business of this House in the coming weeks.

It's critically important that that be on the record, that there be a complete and thorough understanding of the position the official opposition is taking with respect to the government's decisions to close off debate and close off hundreds of people who may wish to appear to express their concerns.

PRIX DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

DE L'ONTARIO

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins—Baie James): Je veux prendre cette opportunité pour dire, de la part du parti néo-démocratique, félicitations à ceux et celles qui se sont fait donner cet honneur. On connaît très bien les personnes, Caroline Andrew, Annie Dell, Gérald Savoie, et spécialement M. Raymond Tremblay, qui vient de mon comté de Hearst. On sait que ces francophones, comme les autres, sont très dévoués à la communauté. Ils travaillent très fort pour être capables d'avancer les dossiers importants pour la francophonie de l'Ontario. Comme néo-démocrates, on veut les féliciter.

Je veux aussi souligner que ce n'est pas la première fois que l'on fait ça. C'est la première fois que le gouvernement le fait comme honneur, mais l'Assemblée parlementaire de la francophonie de l'Ontario aussi, où tous les trois partis font

partie du processus, qui est une manière d'honorer que l'on donne aussi, et on va justement pouvoir honorer d'autres francophones plus tard, au printemps. Donc, on les félicite.

RÉDUCTION DES COÛTS D'ÉLECTRICITÉ /

HYDRO REBATES

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins—Baie James): Je veux dire au ministre des Richesses naturelles que votre annonce faisant affaire avec ce qui se passe avec l'électricité a été très mal acceptée par le monde du nord de l'Ontario. Je peux vous dire que si vous étiez un travailleur de Timmins à matin, l'annonce qui était faite hier ne fait absolument rien pour assurer votre emploi.

On a appris ce matin, moins de 24 heures après que le gouvernement a fait son annonce faisant affaire avec le prix de l'électricité, que la scierie de Tembec va fermer pour une période indéfinie. Une des raisons est non seulement le marché, mais aussi le prix de l'électricité. On sait que ces utilisateurs dans les scieries, tels que d'autres qui n'ont pas été affectés par l'annonce, vont se trouver d'une manière très négative. Si vous vous étiez un travailleur dans une scierie ou dans tous les autres moulins de pâte à papier qui n'ont pas été affectés, autres que les cinq qui peuvent participer dans l'annonce qui était faite hier, ça ne va faire absolument rien pour vous.

If you're a worker in many sawmills and paper mills across northern Ontario, the minister's announcement today and reannouncement of what was said yesterday by the Premier and by the minister in different parts of the province last night, in regard to electricity prices, will do absolutely nothing to safeguard your job. We have literally tens of thousands of workers in northern Ontario who have lost their jobs in the forestry sector. One of the key issues is the question of electricity. This particular announcement falls very much shy of what the mayors, unions and others have asked for.

This particular program is not a reduction in electricity prices. You're tinkering at the edges. All this is is a rebate program that is tied to meeting certain goals when it comes to energy efficiency. In other words, if a company such as Tembec, Kapuskasing, decides they want to participate, as they have, they have to be able to meet a certain target to get 100% of the one cent per kilowatt hour that they would get as a saving, if they're able to meet it. I just say that this falls short.

If you're a worker in Timmins -- as the minister knows, we've had more sad news this morning -- Tembec announced this morning an indefinite closure of the Tembec sawmill in the city of Timmins. This is a company that was poised to reannounce $3.5 million of investment on a small saw line in order to make their plant more efficient, to be able to weather the storm that we've seen in forestry in northern Ontario. The announcement yesterday did absolutely nothing for Tembec.

Here we are, less than 24 hours later, and the 120 workers who have lost their jobs in Timmins, and all of those related workers in the forestry sector, as contractors and others are not dancing in the streets today. They're dancing to the unemployment insurance office and they're crying. I'm saying that in a very sad way. It's a sad story. These workers are not going to benefit one iota from the announcement made yesterday.

This government hasn't figured it out. The Conservative electricity policy, as started by Mr. Harris and then implemented by Mr. Eves, was a failure. You were in opposition, Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Ramsay, at the time that the Conservatives introduced it. Like us, the New Democrats, you opposed it. You said that the deregulation and privatization of electricity would lead to job losses. You promised that if you were elected, you would not go down the same road as the Conservatives, and people elected you on the basis of thinking that you would do what you said in the last election. Instead, what have we got?

We've got a McGuinty government that, if you close your eyes and dull your ears, you'd swear to God you're listening to Mike Harris or Ernie Eves. If you listen to Mr. Duncan, the Minister of Energy, you would think that he was John Baird, because the words that they speak are absolutely no different than the words that were spoken by the former Conservative government.

We in northern Ontario, as other industrial sectors across southwestern Ontario and other parts of the province, are at our wits' end. We are losing jobs by the thousands. Why don't you wake up and realize that your electricity policies are a major share of the blame when it comes to the job losses and undo the damage you did by admitting that your energy policy has failed us?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds—Grenville): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I'm referencing standing order 35(e), dealing with ministerial statements. I took your comments earlier as a caution, not a ruling. As I read this, it says, "Opposition parties in the House may comment for up to a total of five minutes for each party, commencing with the official opposition." There is no reference to commenting specifically on the ministerial statements, and I would ask for your clarification of that at some point, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I take your point of order and would ask you to reflect on the precedents of this House, which do maintain the ruling that I did make. I provided you with much latitude on this, but the ruling is that you are to comment on the statements by the minister.

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on that same point of order: I would refer you to standing order 23, specifically 23(e), which says that the Speaker shall call a member to order if their speech "anticipates any matter already on the Orders and Notices paper for consideration," which is precisely what the member from Leeds—Grenville did. You in fact appropriately called this to his attention, and as a veteran member of this House, I would hope that the member is familiar with standing order 23(e). Speaker, I wanted to bring that to your attention.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order: I want to point out that in the NDP's response to the statement, John Baird would take offence to being compared to the current Minister of Energy.

The Speaker: It may be a point of debate, but not a point of order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Late yesterday, under the cover of darkness, your office gave orders to shut down the committee hearings on Bill 107, the human rights legislation, against the express wishes of the legislative committee, which included your own Liberal members.

Now, one week ago, the Attorney General stood in this House, and he said in question period, "I look forward to the matter being debated in the committee, not only tomorrow and the next day but however long it takes." That's what the Attorney General said: "However long it takes."

My question for the Premier is this: Why is the Premier deliberately going back on the word of his Attorney General? Why is he ignoring and refusing to hear the hundreds of people who remain to be heard on this bill? And why did you order that the debate be shut down in this manner at this time?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): There are a couple of points I want to put on the record here. First of all, I'll note in passing that the Conservatives, when in government, invoked closure 102 times, on 102 separate occasions, something that the leader of the official opposition may want to keep in mind when he considers his moral standing with respect to putting forward this point.

The second point I want to make is why it's so important for us to move ahead with improvement to our human rights system here in Ontario. Complaints presently take far too long. Five to 10 years for resolution of a complaint is simply unacceptable.

The legislation has been under discussion now for over 200 days. In fact, the call for change started some 14 years ago. The committee has toured Thunder Bay, London, Ottawa and, of course, it sat in Toronto. We were bringing forward amendments, but we think it's important that we move ahead.

Mr. Tory: The standing committee on justice policy decided that it wanted to hear from as many presenters as it could, and they unanimously -- with the support of your members, the Liberal members of the committee -- voted in favour of an extended hearing

schedule that would in fact go beyond this month. They've got hearings booked solid, in any event, through to and including December 14. Beyond that, there were advertisements booked, on the instructions of the committee, by the clerk of the committee, at public expense of $106,000 to put ads in the newspaper advertising the hearings that had been agreed to by the committee. This is another $106,000 that you seem to be prepared to flush down the toilet because you have no respect for this House or for taxpayers' money.

Your Attorney General said, "However long it takes," and you said, on April 27, that people would be given ample opportunity to be heard. There are hundreds of people waiting to be heard. Why are you going back on your word and not letting them be heard?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: To the Attorney General.

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General): There has been ample opportunity for this to be heard. This bill has been before the House for more than 220 days. We have had several days of second reading debate. We have had several days of public committee hearings. But let's be clear as to where each of the parties are. Last week, the member for Whitby—Ajax put out a press release saying that we should suspend the public hearings, stop them. In the summer, the House leader for the New Democratic Party said that he would filibuster the bill. We don't think that we should stop the hearings.

We don't think that the hearings should be filibustered. We believe that there should be hearings this week, that they should continue next week, and that this should come back to the House for third reading. That is in fact what is going to happen, and that is going to ensure that for the first time in 44 years, our human rights system is actually going to get a reform.

Mr. Tory: The fact of the matter is that when you are bringing about reform to a piece of legislation such as the Human Rights Code that is a foundation piece of legislation in this province, when you are doing it for the first time in 44 years, if we accept your calendar on that, that is precisely why you need to take the time to hear from people, as you said. It was you, the Attorney General, who said that we would listen for however long it takes to people who wanted to be heard on this bill. That's what you said.

The fact of the matter is, the official opposition only suggested the hearings be suspended until you actually shared with them, perhaps out of a sense of respect for the opposition, the wording of hundreds of amendments you were bringing forward to your own legislation.

My question is this: What happened to the person who stood in this House and said to the opposition and to the people of Ontario, "However long it takes"? You were right then on something that's amended once in 44 years, that people deserve the right to be heard. Why are you shutting them down now? Why is the Premier bringing the guillotine down on this debate and on these people and their right to be heard? It's a disgrace, and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Bryant: I think the member knows that if in fact a matter has indefinite debate, it means that the bill will never pass. And if that is the purpose of the official opposition, then I think they should make that clear. It has been the position of the third party that in fact they do not want the bill to pass. They have said that they will filibuster the bill. Mr. Kormos said that the Chair of the justice committee will be an old man before this bill passes.

We heard today from some people who have been, in their own words, re-victimized by this very system. We heard from Stephanie Payne, who talked about a complaint with the commission that was a traumatic experience that lasted 10 years. We heard from Suvania Shiu, who said she was re-victimized by the process: Eight and a half years before the commission, and the case was in fact dismissed.

I'm not going to wait until victims of human rights are old men and old women before we have an opportunity to bring this bill back to the House for an up-or-down vote --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you. New question.

Mr. Tory: My question again is to the Premier. There is no one suggesting it should go on indefinitely at all. We're just suggesting --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The Minister of Northern Development.

The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Tory: We're merely suggesting that the people who have expressed a wish to be heard should be heard. The reason that legislation of this type gets dealt with only once in a generation is because it is so important, because it is so complex, because the issues are difficult to deal with. There is no one who is arguing the status quo should prevail. Not one person is arguing that the backlog that has been created over time should be allowed to continue.

It was the Attorney General of Ontario, the very man who was just lecturing me, who said: "We look forward to ... getting feedback from Ontarians." "We anticipate this should go to committee." "I look forward to this debate." "I look forward to [it] being debated ... however long it takes."

These are quotes from the Attorney General.

I ask the Premier this question: At every corner, this government has broken promises. Now Mr. McGuinty has humiliated his own Attorney General -- who said, "However long it takes" -- by going back on the Premier's and the Attorney General's word. Will you withdraw this time allocation motion, allow people to be heard --

The Speaker: The question's been asked. Premier?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: In government, as I'm sure the leader of the official opposition will recognize, we have a responsibility to bring about progressive reforms that meet the needs of the people of Ontario. Equally important, we have a responsibility to ensure that people have an opportunity to lend shape to policy initiatives. And of course, we also have the right, as the duly elected government of the people of Ontario, to move forward legislation once we have made a call that it's important legislation and that we've ensured that people have an opportunity to lend shape to that legislation.

This call for change started some 14 years ago. The legislation has been under discussion for over 200 days. In the end, it will have more than 40 hours of debate. Again, we're talking about a committee that did have the opportunity to tour the province. We think, all things considered, that this is an important public policy initiative. We think we've given the people of Ontario ample opportunity to lend shape to this policy. We'll be having more committee hearings, and we look forward --

The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr. Tory: What the Premier just said about having more committee hearings is not consistent with the facts, not in terms of listening to people. There will be hearings to consider amendments -- hundreds, dozens of amendments that have been brought forward.

Let's trace through the chronology. On November 14, in Hansard, in question period, the Attorney General says, "However long it takes." On November 14, Mr. Bryant, the Attorney General, writes a letter to Mrs. Margaret Parsons, in which he says that the committee intends to hold additional public hearings in the winter on dates and in locations to be determined. On November 15, the committee itself, including the Liberal members, votes in favour of an extended round of hearings at that time. And then on November 20, the guillotine is brought down by the Premier's office to shut down debate, to gag these people who want to be heard on this human rights legislation.

Premier, what happened between November 14 -- "However long it takes" -- the letter, the vote by the committee and you bringing down the guillotine? What are you afraid of? What happened?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: To the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Bryant: The member may be mistaken about his facts. There was a published report out today which suggested that debate and committee hearings will end today. That, in fact, is not accurate. Yes, we are debating that tonight. There will be further committee hearings this week, there will be committee hearings, as I say, next week, and this bill will come back for third reading in November.

It is the very nature of this bill and this reform that this matter has been debated and studied and filibustered to death. On that basis, nothing has happened in some 44 years. The New Democratic Party empanelled a task force to look at the matter and did nothing about it. The Conservative government, which didn't even bother empanelling a task force, did nothing about it. How many days of public hearings did we have on human rights bills under the Conservatives? Zero. How many days of public hearings under the NDP? Zero. Have we had ample debate on this? Yes, we have. Yes, we --

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Tory: I come back to my question. It wasn't me who stood in this House and said that they would take however long it takes to listen to the people. It wasn't me who wrote the letter to Mrs. Parsons saying that there would be hearings held in the winter on dates and in locations to be determined. In fact, if you check the motion brought forward by the government House leader, it says that the committee is authorized to meet from 9:30 to 12:30 and after routine proceedings on November 29 to consider and complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and it goes on to talk about other things after that.

What happened? Why don't you just stand up and admit, then, that you wrote a letter and misled this woman with respect to the fact --

The Speaker: You'll need to withdraw the offending word.

Mr. Tory: I'll withdraw that. But why don't you stand in your place and say you wrote a letter to Mrs. Parsons and were grossly inaccurate with respect to the fact that there would be further hearings that you committed to, that you didn't mean it when you said you'd let the hearings go on for however long it took to hear the people who wanted to be heard. Answer the question. What happened? Why won't you let people be heard on this bill?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: Well, this is great. This is from the leader of a Conservative Party whose one contribution to the human rights system when they were in government was to cut the legal aid system by $2 million, preceded only by the NDP government, which, in the year before the Tories took power, cut the legal aid system by $2 million. Your sole contribution to this entire process has been to cut the funding for legal aid, and last week your critic said that we have to suspend public hearings on legal aid.

We will not do that. We will not continue the tradition of cuts. We will not continue the tradition of silence. We will not continue the tradition of inaction. We will reform the human rights system in the name of those victims so that we in Ontario can have a human rights system we're proud of instead of the one, and the record you have, which you should be ashamed of.

The Speaker: New question. The leader of the third party.

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora—Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. After promising advocacy groups and visible minorities concerned with human rights protection that you would hold public hearings on Bill 107, today you announced that you're cancelling the public hearings and shutting down debate.

Premier, you promised to listen to human rights advocates, not shut them out. What's your justification for this betrayal of trust and this betrayal of your promise?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I'm happy to take the question of the leader of the NDP.

I think it's really important to understand what is at stake here. What's at stake is an absolutely essential reform of an antiquated, outdated human rights system.

We have heard from many people for many years now, over a course of various governments of various political stripes, none of whom have had the courage, until ours, to decide to pick up this ball and run with it.

It's not without some controversy; we understand that. But we also think we have given the people of Ontario good opportunities to provide shape to our public policy initiative, and we think it's really important that we move forward.

As I said just a few moments ago, the legislation has been under discussion for over 200 days. We will have more than 40 hours of debate by the time this matter is brought to conclusion --

The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Hampton: This is once again about promises that you and your Attorney General made. Your Attorney General gave you a copy of the letter to Margaret Parsons, executive director of the African Canadian Legal Clinic, where he says, "The committee intends to hold additional public hearings in the winter on dates and in locations to be determined." You got a copy of that.

Now you're saying you don't care to hear from advocates for the vulnerable, you don't care to hear from advocates for the disabled community, you don't care to hear from advocates from visible minority communities -- you don't care to listen to them or hear from them.

Premier, some of those advocates are here today. Can you tell them why the McGuinty government doesn't think you need to listen to them or hear from them after you promised to do so?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: To the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Bryant: I'm sure the leader of the New Democratic Party doesn't want to talk about the social contract being pulled out of committee: no hearings, and cutting off of debate.

I'm sure the leader of the third party would like to talk about those people who disagree with him, who are here today in the Legislature to say that we need to get these reforms and that the filibustering tactics of the third party cannot be allowed to continue forever.

I'm sure that Mr. Hampton heard from the people who support Bill 107. I'm sure he heard from June Callwood, and as well from the president of the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres. I'm sure he heard from Catherine Frazee, former chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I'm sure he heard from Buzz Hargrove, president of CAW Canada. I'm sure he also heard from the Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children. I'm sure he also heard from METRAC and from the Faye Peterson Transition House.

Why is the NDP not listening? Everybody is saying we need to change the system. We have a bill before the House to do so. Why --

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, you're the one who said to the people of Ontario that you believed in open, accountable, transparent government. You're the one who told these advocates that there would be continued public hearings and that you wanted to hear what they had to say.

Premier, it's your promise. You said you wanted to hear from these people. Tell them why you don't care what they think, what they say or how this may affect them.

Hon. Mr. Bryant: The leader of the third party opposes this bill. The leader of the third party does not want this bill to pass. The leader of the third party will do everything he can to stop this bill from ever passing. The leader of the third party doesn't care about continued debate with a view to having this bill come before the Legislature for a vote. The leader of the third party wants to do one thing and only one thing: He wants to filibuster and derail this bill.

Why did the leader of the third party take the task force that he empanelled, led by Mary Cornish, that called for these reforms and shelve it? Why did he do that?

The Toronto Star said on November 19, "In the face of clear evidence the current system is broken, Ontario cannot afford to let this opportunity slip away." We will not let this opportunity slip away.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr. Hampton: To the Premier again, because once again, this is his promise. Premier, there is no filibuster here. There's been no filibuster. The only question I've asked on this legislation is about your government's willingness to hold public hearings and to hear from all the human rights advocates who may be affected by it. So stop trying to pretend that somebody is trying to pour cement in the works. That's not happening.

Premier, what's really interesting is that you spent over $100,000 on newspaper ads advertising that there would be public hearings. That's $100,000 of public money. So I want to ask the Premier this: If you weren't interested in hearing from these human rights advocates, if you don't care what they say, why did you spend $100,000 placing ads saying there would be hearings?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Just to support something my Attorney General said a moment ago, I think it's really important that we understand what's at play here. The Conservative Party and the NDP are absolutely opposed to moving ahead with human rights legislation in the province of Ontario. They've made that very clear. They are cloaking that under the guise of a desire to support additional representations to be made by members of the public. We understand that and we see through that. Our higher responsibility owed to the people of Ontario is to ensure that we reform Ontario's human rights system.

I can understand why the previous governments have shied away from that. It is fraught with some real challenges, but notwithstanding that, we've heard from Ontarians. I think we'll have close to 10 days of hearings at the end of it. We've had ample opportunity to hear from people, and we're open to more representation to be received by way of e-mail or letter, but we really think it's time for us to move ahead.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, I want to remind you of some of your comments and your Attorney General's comments of just a few years ago. Your Attorney General, when he was in opposition, said, "I, too, choked when I saw that yet another debate-killing motion was before this Legislature." He said that time allocation is a guillotine motion, "We want more debate, not less debate."

You spent $100,000 telling everyone far and wide in the province there would be more debate and there would be public hearings, that you wanted to hear from the people who might be affected by this legislation.

Premier, if you're so opposed to guillotine motions, if you're so opposed to shutting down debate, if you're so opposed to shutting out people who want to be heard on important human rights legislation, why would you ever bring in a guillotine motion yourself that terminates the hearings and shuts down debate?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: To the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Bryant: June 8, 1993, Bill 164, auto insurance: three days in committee before time-allocated. Bill 165: four days in committee before time-allocated by the NDP government. Bill 48, the social contract: one day in committee before the whole House moved on a time allocation. Bill 100, regulated health professions: five days in committee before movement of time allocation.

Let's be clear here. The third party's approach to Bill 107 is to filibuster. I'm not guessing; I'm quoting. Mr. Kormos, on August 10 in standing committee, said, "I want to filibuster the bill ... [and] you'll be an old man before this thing passes, okay?"

Well, I don't want the victims of human rights to be old men and women before this bill passes --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Halton.

Final supplementary?

Mr. Hampton: Besides breaking promises, the McGuinty government is very good at only reading half the quote, because what Mr. Kormos said is, "Let's just get realistic here and be practical and act in good faith, like we have so far," and have the public hearings. But do we see good faith from the McGuinty government today? No, not for a second. What we see is a government that is afraid that people who have credibility in the human rights field might criticize it; that human rights advocates like David Lepofsky might point out that your legislation isn't all that you've advertised it to be.

Isn't that the real issue, Premier? You don't want to hear from these human rights advocates because they might be critical of your legislation, and nine months before an election you're prepared to put your political future ahead of their human rights advocacy.

Hon. Mr. Bryant: I can say with a lot of confidence that in fact this government has heard from many, many, many people on this issue, both in committee hearings and outside of committee hearings. We've heard from people who support Bill 107, and believe me, I have heard from people who are opposed to it, and I've heard them several times. I've sat down with some of the people -- from the letters you are quoting from -- several times. We've spent hours and hours and hours debating this bill in and outside of the House. We've spent years and years and years considering these human rights reforms.

But meanwhile, what about the 2,500 people who come to the human rights system every year and who see years and years and years of delay? This reform is about ending the delay in the human rights system. And if any party is playing politics with this debate, it's that party right there.

The Speaker: New question?

Mr. Tory: A question for the Premier: In stating that both of the opposition parties were not interested or were opposed to reforming the human rights act, you made statements that had no foundation in fact. We think the system has to be fixed, and we believe that a backlog, in effect, acts to deny justice or deny access to people.

But it's very interesting to note that the Attorney General, in getting up and listing all the people who had been heard recently, listed people who had come in favour of the bill. It is very interesting to note that a lot of the people you're guillotining and gagging and who are not being heard are people who have concerns about the bill. You've decided you are not going to hear from them on a bill that we amend every 40 years or so.

My question is this: If we commit to agreeing to have this matter come to a vote first thing when we come back in the spring, will you agree to let the hearings go ahead that were scheduled and agreed to and committed to at your word by your government? Will you agree to let those hearings go ahead and let these people be heard on this fundamental piece of legislation?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: To the Attorney General, Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Bryant: The leader of the official opposition talks about human rights reform as if it's something that the Conservative Party had been remotely interested in. Was it in your platform in the last election? No, of course it wasn't. Was it in the platform in 1999? No, of course it wasn't. Did they introduce a single bill before the Legislature to advance the human rights system in the eight years they were in office? No. They've never had an interest in improving the human rights system. Their sole contribution to the human rights system is that they cut it by $2 million in their first year in office.

So we're not going to take any lectures from that leader when it comes to reforming the human rights system.

Mr. Tory: The Attorney General should check the history books. It was John Parmenter Robarts, Conservative Premier of Ontario, who introduced the Human Rights Code in this province. But let's forget about the history.

Let me reiterate that I want to know what happened between the time the Attorney General of Ontario said, "However long it takes" -- he wrote to Ms. Parsons and said there would be winter hearings. If you want to talk about good faith, I'm standing here saying that if we agree that we will allow a vote to be taken first thing when the spring session of the House begins, will you agree to let these people be heard, as you said you would in writing -- your word -- as you said you would in this House in response to a question, and if not, why not?

Why won't you keep your word and why wouldn't you agree to a reasonable accommodation like that when it comes to human rights legislation -- foundation legislation in this province that people have the right to be heard on?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bryant: The leader of the official opposition quotes from Premier Robarts and asks what happened. I don't know what happened to the grand old Conservative Party, but I can tell you they've lost all their interest in human rights reform in the last 40 years.

Let's be clear --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm having great difficulty hearing the Attorney General.

Attorney General?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: The member is quoting from statements that have been made over the last few months. I'd remind him of the statement made by the member for Whitby—Ajax. She said that the committee hearings should not proceed. She wanted the committee hearings to stop last week, and we're saying no, we're not going to stop the committee hearings, and no, we're not going to filibuster the hearings.

Rather, we're going to make sure that an appropriate amount of committee hearings take place -- more committee hearings than ever took place on the social contract, and more committee hearings than took place on just about every single bill that was before this House under the Harris-Eves government --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

Mr. Hampton: My question is to the Premier. I want to read to you a letter that is addressed to you as of today's date:

"I wish to express my profound dismay at your government's notice to invoke closure and prematurely end debate on Bill 107,

An Act to reform the Ontario Human Rights Commission."

Further, "By bringing an abrupt halt to the proceedings, the opportunity to reform the legislation is lost. I fear the existing divisions will become more polarized and bitter."

This is a letter from Barbara Hall, chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. If you won't listen to me and you won't listen to the human rights advocates who are here today, will you at least listen to the chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, whom you appointed?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: To the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Bryant: Here is the NDP trying to have it both ways. When the chief commissioner was before the justice committee hearings, the House leader for the third party, Mr. Kormos, questioned whether or not Ms. Hall was speaking on behalf of the entire commission and, as a result, he said, "We need to have every single staff person in the commission come before the justice committee and testify" -- every single person. You can't question the credibility of the chief commissioner on one hand, and then rush to the defence of the chief commissioner on the other.

To speak to the chief commissioner's concerns, I can assure everybody in this House that yes, as she asks, there will be an opportunity to fine-tune the amendments; yes, the commission will be given an opportunity to address the amendments; and yes, Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall supports Bill 107.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, I want to quote further from the chief commissioner of the Human Rights Commission, whom you appointed: "It may seem trite to remind you that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. This is an essential truth with the law and particularly in regard to human rights. The justice policy committee clearly felt that an extended period of consultation would have value; however, the invitation may now be withdrawn. Dozens of groups and individuals who have waited to take

part could be denied the opportunity at the 11th hour."

Premier, the chief commissioner is asking you to withdraw your motion of closure. I am asking you, will you do the right thing? Will you withdraw your motion of closure and hear from these human rights advocates and build consensus rather than creating division, which is what you are doing now?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: Look, it is a matter of determining the point to which one lets the New Democratic Party filibuster this bill. There has to be a point at which the government says, "This many days and then let us have a vote."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Erie—Lincoln. The member from Renfrew.

Attorney General?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: The member refers to justice being done and seen to be done, and that is absolutely the case. We have to ensure that there is an ample number of days and hours devoted to this bill. But I remind the member of another truism, which is that justice delayed is justice denied. For too many people who go to our human rights system, they are receiving no justice at all. We heard from people this morning who were before the human rights system for eight and a half years, for 10 years, and no justice. For these people, justice delayed means no justice at all.

This bill shortens the pipeline from complaint to resolution. That's why this bill is before the House. That's why it needs to come before this House for an up-and-down vote, and that's why we need to reform this human rights system right now.

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa—Orléans): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Yesterday, John Tory released a policy paper discussing his plan to remove barriers faced by foreign-trained individuals. Minister, you introduced Bill 124, the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, the first legislation in Canada and North America to address the tremendous difficulty foreign-trained professionals often encounter when trying to find work in their field. This problem results in serious economic costs to our province and tragic social costs to the families of these highly skilled individuals.

To fix this problem, Bill 124 targets the root of the problem by creating a fairer process for accreditation and licensing in 34 regulated professions.

In addition to this, I know that your ministry has a history of taking innovative approaches to helping newcomers find work in their chosen field. Minister, could you tell us a little more about some other initiatives taken by your ministry already, in addition to Bill 124?

Hon. Mike Colle (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Beyond Bill 124, what we've done is, in our breaking-down-barriers plan, we're the first provincial government to ever get a provincial agreement with the federal government: $920 million. No other government has done that; we did it. We have created immigrant gateways in Sudbury, London, Windsor, Ottawa and Toronto. For the first time, we have immigrant gateways encouraging people to go outside of the GTA. We have, for the first time, created internships in the Ontario public service. No government ever did that for the internationally trained.

We now have paid internships for the internationally trained. We have a loan program. People talked about a loan program. We've established a $5,000 loan program for any internationally trained individual. We have it in the works. We also have bridge training programs in 100 professions. And we also have doubled the funding for people seeking accreditation as doctors in this province, up to $53 million. That's already been done.

Mr. McNeely: Thank you, Minister, for that response.

Earlier this month, I had the pleasure of having you speak to a number of community groups in my riding of Ottawa—Orléans. I thank you for participating in that round table. It was a very productive meeting and the discussions it generated were very encouraging.

Minister, I would like to follow up with you about something that you mentioned at that meeting. You stressed how important it is for governments to not just talk about taking action when it comes to issues affecting newcomers, but to practise it, and you mentioned that this government is leading by example. Can you explain some of the additional impacts this government will have in passing Bill 124?

Hon. Mr. Colle: We had a very productive meeting in Orléans with people who were advocates on behalf of newcomers. As they've been doing all across the province, the advocates keep saying, "We need strong legislation like Bill 124." That's why Bill 124 has the power to impose annual reporting and audits on all regulatory bodies. No government has ever done that. Bill 124 also has the authority to impose fines of up to $100,000 on regulatory bodies. That's tough.

It also creates an access centre within government to help the internationally trained, to give them advice and counselling and help them navigate the system. There is no access centre now, and Bill 124, if passed, would create that. It establishes, for the first time, a fairness commissioner for the foreign-trained. They don't have that right now, and Bill 124 would create that. And it creates a fair, open, due process for the internationally trained. There is none in Ontario now, and it's about time we had some.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

Mrs. Christine Elliott (Whitby—Ajax): My question is for the Attorney General. Yesterday, in response to my question, you stood in your place and guaranteed that all Ontarians will receive full representation by a lawyer throughout their complaint process under Bill 107. The Hamilton Spectator, however, reported on November 10, 2006, that you said, "The province is willing to make changes to its proposals for overhauling Ontario's human rights systems but it won't pour in more money."

Minister, you can't have it both ways. It's time for you to be honest with the people of Ontario, particularly the most vulnerable people in Ontario. How can you possibly reconcile these two statements and provide a lawyer for every person who wants one without putting in additional funding?

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General): Well, the Conservative Party can't have it both ways. The Conservative Party cannot on the one hand cut funding to the Ontario Human Rights Commission and then, on the other hand, say that in fact they want to reform and improve the Human Rights Commission. And the member opposite can't say last week that the committee hearings should not proceed, on the one hand, and yet we should have more committee hearings, on the other hand.

When it comes to these committee hearings and when it comes to this bill, there has been a significant amount of debate. The positions are very well known. I don't anticipate I'm going to change the minds of some people, which is not to say that the committee amendments we've already presented before the committee are not going to continue to be considered and consulted on, and I look forward to the member's comments, substantive comments, on the specific amendments that are before her right now, because we put those amendments before her in committee last week.

Mrs. Elliott: Minister, you know and I know that what I said in committee last week was that we should suspend the committee hearings until we have the full text of the amendments so that we know that your smoke-and-mirrors amendments have some substance. You know that you did not table the amendments with us; you gave us some vague statement that people are attaching to you because you're saying the words they want to hear. But you know and I know that that's not what the amendment said. We don't even have the amendments.

You're the one who's cutting off the debate; you're the one who's muzzling disability and racialized minority groups. And before these hearings are cut off, let's be clear: How do you plan to find a lawyer for every person who wants a lawyer in these proceedings without putting more new money in? Let's be honest with the people of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bryant: Funding for the Ontario Human Rights Commission reached a 10-year low. It happened in 1996-97, and it happened under the Harris-Eves government.

The views on this bill are well known. The views on human rights reform are well known. They've been known for years. The views on Bill 107 have been known for more than 200 days. The e-mails, the letters, the meetings, the committee hearings -- there have been dozens and dozens and dozens.

We know that the third party wishes only to filibuster. I don't know if the official opposition wants to filibuster or simply derail. I do know that the only way in which we're going to get the first reform to the human rights system in 44 years is if at some point it comes back to this House and we have an up-and-down vote on reform for the victims in Ontario, so that we can give them real, adequate and timely justice, something they've not had for far, far too long.

CHILD POVERTY

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches—East York): A little change of pace: My question is to the Minister of Health Promotion. Minister, earlier this month you said that you were troubled by the fact that less than 50% of school-aged kids report eating at least five servings of fruits and vegetables every day. Your answer was to declare war on Twinkies in our schools. You said that kids need healthier foods and more physical activity to combat ill health and obesity.

Minister, if you really cared about children's health like you say you do, you'd be declaring war on child poverty. The families, the parents of Ontario's poorest kids, can't afford to feed their children fruit and vegetables every day. So when will you and all of your colleagues step up and demand that your Premier keep his broken promise to our poorest kids and end the clawback of the national child benefit so that all of our kids can eat healthily every day?

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Health Promotion): Mr. Speaker, I would refer that to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I'd like to thank the member opposite for asking this question. I wanted to reiterate that child poverty is a very, very difficult problem and that it needs a multifaceted approach. This government, since we have been elected, has invested in children in different ministries. We have invested in education; we have invested in social services; we have invested in children and youth services; we have invested in health. This government this year will have spent $10.4 billion in my ministry. All of the money goes towards helping those children in need, and their parents.

Mr. Prue: If only that were so. Every single month, you take $120 per poor child and you keep that money and spend it on something else. You do not give it to the families who need it, and those poor children cannot afford to eat healthy fruits and vegetables which you go around telling them they should be eating.

Today at Queen's Park we welcomed the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition, ISARC. Once again, they are disappointed that you refuse to end the egregious clawback of money that will help kids to live better and eat more healthy foods.

Minister, some of those people are here today in the audience. Tell these delegates from ISARC that you care about the health of the poorest children, and declare war on poverty, not Twinkies. Will you end the clawback now?

Hon. Mrs. Meilleur: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne (Minister of Education): I think it really is beneath the member opposite to diminish the initiatives that we take in our schools and across our government to change the culture around kids and healthy eating, and I think part of that is what goes on in our schools.

The nutritional guidelines we've put in place, the 20 minutes of mandatory physical activity which we've put $10 million towards -- it's not just a guideline; we've actually put money into the system to allow schools to have the equipment they need. We have $8.5 million annually for nutrition programs in our schools. We've doubled the money for nutrition programs.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): The member for Hamilton East will come to order.

Hon. Ms. Wynne: Our schools are part of a community of care for our children, and what we've done is we have doubled the amount of money in our schools for children for nutrition programs. What that means is that kids who come to school hungry are getting food in the school.

There's a culture shift that has to happen around kids' awareness of what they should be eating. That's part of what we're doing to help all children across the province, and the third party should be supportive of that.

PUBLIC HEALTH

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell): My question is to the Minister of Health Promotion. Minister, during constituency week you came to visit some eastern Ontario communities such as Cornwall and Alexandria.

In Cornwall, you made a very important announcement: your ministry's investment in the Eastern Ontario Health Unit. The Eastern Ontario Health Unit is responsible for the promotion and protection of our citizens' health and well-being. It employs over 150 people across several local county offices in eastern Ontario communities, including my riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

Minister, has your Ministry of Health Promotion reached out to assist these dedicated health professionals?

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Health Promotion): It's appropriate that that question is asked on the 20th anniversary of the World Health Organization's Ottawa charter, because what the Ottawa charter talked about was the importance of putting more resources on the front end of the health care spectrum, preventing illness and promoting wellness. That's exactly why Premier McGuinty created this ministry just a little over a year ago.

I was very delighted to be in Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde's riding to announce $33,000 in communities in action fund funding. This is a program that goes to help increase physical activity rates throughout the province.

We also announced $85,000 through our ministry's heart health program that's going to go to improve walking trails in the community, implementing the Eat Smart! program in restaurants in eastern Ontario and promoting workplace wellness.

I want to congratulate the Eastern Ontario Health Unit. I want to thank my colleagues Jim Brownell and Jean-Marc Lalonde for their tireless effort to make sure that those communities in eastern Ontario get their fair share of the communities in action fund and heart health funding from the government of Ontario.

Mr. Lalonde: We always enjoy having you visit in our riding.

Minister, I am extremely pleased to be part of a government that understands the need of Ontario's eastern and rural communities. Your recent announcement of support will help the local branches of the Eastern Ontario Health Unit, particularly those in Alexandria, Hawkesbury, Winchester, Casselman and Rockland.

Minister, I was happy to see the efforts of our health unit with respect to smoking prevention and cessation rewarded with the Heather Crowe Award. Can you outline what resources have been made available to the Eastern Ontario Health Unit to implement the landmark Smoke-Free Ontario Act?

Hon. Mr. Watson: I was very pleased to meet with Dr. Robert Bourdeau, the chief medical officer of health, who for so many years has done great work in eastern Ontario's health unit. When we brought in the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, we recognized that we couldn't simply go to the old ways of downloading costs and responsibilities, so we in fact, through this government and through the finance ministry, have provided $512,000 for enforcement, education and cessation programs on smoke-free Ontario for the Eastern Ontario Health Unit.

I'm pleased to report that just a few days ago a survey came out that showed 53% of smokers have made efforts to quit since the implementation of the smoke-free Ontario strategy. We know that smoking kills 16,000 people prematurely in the province of Ontario. We know the cost to the economy is $2.6 billion in lost productivity and, finally, $1.7 billion in costs to the health care system. I'm proud of the Eastern Ontario Health Unit and the work they've done on a proactive basis --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you. New question.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark—Carleton): My question is to the Premier. During the last election in a platform document, Government that Works for You, you promised, "We will require public hearings for all major legislation."

Mr. Premier, we've had probably five or 10 pieces of legislation which I would consider major during the last three years. I consider Bill 107 as one of those major pieces of legislation. Do you consider Bill 107 a major piece of legislation?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): To the Attorney General.

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General): We have had public hearings. Let me say it again: We have had public hearings, and we're having more committee hearings, and we're having more debate on this.

I know that there was no bill under the Harris-Eves government that dealt with human rights reform. I understand that. There weren't any public hearings on that when the member was in that government. They didn't bring any such bill before the House; we have brought this bill before the House.

The member knows very well that at some point after there's debate and committee hearings, there's a time when the views are well known, there are times when the positions are well established and there is an opportunity for members of this House to come in fully informed. Nobody can suggest that they are not fully informed on issues around the human rights system and have an opportunity to vote on this. That is the opportunity that we have with this bill and that is the opportunity the members of this House will have when it comes to this Legislature for a vote.

Mr. Sterling: All of us in this Legislature, save and except for the Attorney General, perhaps, can say that we are not informed, because the amendments to this legislation have not been shown by the Attorney General to the committee or to this Legislature. How can you cut off the process? How can you cut off the process, Mr. Premier? How can you cut off the process when all of the facts are not on the table? Will you, at the very least, postpone the guillotine motion to be debated tonight until after the Attorney General puts the amendments on the table so everyone knows what they're dealing with? Is that not a most reasonable request?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: This is coming from a government House leader past who was the captain of closure motions when he had the opportunity. Seriously, I have great respect for the member asking the question, and I find it hard to believe that the member seriously thinks that the calls for reform to the human rights system that are before this House have not been before this House for many years. The member knows very well that when he was the House leader, the government would never show up at committee hearings and propose the amendments, as this government has done.

We've proposed the amendments; we've put them before the House. I would like to hear feedback from the member as to what he thinks of the amendments. Of course we will file the amendments in accordance with the rules; of course we will file the amendments in accordance with the standing orders. But we went one step further: We provided them in advance. This is all just smoke and mirrors. This is an effort to try and derail a bill that deserves to come to this House for an up-or-down vote once and for all so we can reform this human rights --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you. New question.

HOSPITAL GOVERNANCE

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches—East York): My question is to the Minister of Health. Mr. Minister, in June 2006, a group of Scarborough residents called the Coalition of Communities to Save the Grace attended the Scarborough Hospital's annual general meeting, only to have their voices silenced. They claim that the Scarborough Hospital's board of directors barred residents from voting for the hospital board despite their being members in good standing of the hospital corporation.

Minister, you promised to democratize local hospitals and make them accountable to the communities they serve. What are you doing to address the concerns of Scarborough's coalition of communities?

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I have been working very closely with my colleagues from Scarborough on issues of importance with respect to hospital services there.

Indeed, I had the privilege of attending quite recently the groundbreaking for the new emergency room at Scarborough General with several of my colleagues and indicated at that time my awareness of some of the concerns that were being raised in the community and my willingness to be back in the community, specifically around Scarborough Grace, to listen well and to work on point to address some of the concerns that were raised.

I must confess, I haven't had that one-on-one opportunity yet, but I can tell the honourable member that Scarborough hospitals are very much on my agenda, and I look forward to an opportunity of being engaged with members of the local community to discuss more what we can do to assure them at heart that those facilities that they know and love have very bright futures indeed.

Mr. Prue: Mr. Minister, I thank you for the response, but these Scarborough residents -- who are behind you today up in the gallery; they are here in the gallery -- have been asking to meet with you since July to absolutely no avail. They simply want to be involved in the decision-making process. They've repeatedly contacted your office for assistance and nothing has come of that.

Mr. Minister, you claim that democracy at hospitals is important. Will you agree to investigate the alleged anti-democratic activities at the Scarborough Hospital as the coalition of communities has asked? Will you make that commitment to the people in the gallery today?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: With respect, I say, first off, I have recommitted to the willingness to meet. There is regrettably a longer list sometimes of those wishing to meet than time slots available, but I am committed to doing so. I'm committed to doing so because my colleagues from Scarborough and I have long since been working with a view towards addressing some of the concerns that linger related to the alignment of hospital services and administration in the Scarborough communities. If the matter of governance is one of those that people would like to discuss, I'd be very open to it.

At the heart of it, here in Ontario we have community-based governance which allows each of our 154 distinct hospital corporations to have degrees of engagement with the local community. They are considerably different. I'd be very, very happy to look at what we can learn from the circumstances in Scarborough. At the heart of it, I assure the honourable member and, through the Legislature, these individuals that I'll be very keen to sit down with them, as I have with my members from Scarborough, with a view toward enhancing the quality of services and giving confidence about the services that are available at Scarborough hospitals.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. As we approach the winter months, Ontario farmers are evaluating the results of their last harvest and starting to think about the next planting season. Today's local newspaper, the Standard Freeholder, reported that many farmers in my riding of Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh are out in their fields on this very day, at this very moment, taking advantage of the weather to pull in as much of their crops as possible.

However, as the price of grains and oilseeds continues to fluctuate, these farmers have concerns about the long-term sustainability of their operations. Some factors that affect prices are out of their control and are, to a large extent, unpredictable. All the same, they still must plan for next year and the years following.

Minister, can you tell us what this government is doing to help Ontario farmers create sustainable plans in light of produce price fluctuations?

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): That's a good question.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): Yes, it is a very good question, but we always get good questions from our colleague from Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh. He's a great advocate for the agriculture industry.

I just want to share with the members of this House what our government is doing. We're very much looking forward to participating in discussions about the next agriculture policy framework. There's going to be a pillar in that framework to deal with income support. But I want to say that when that framework first came to my ministry for consideration, the federal government did not have any consideration for income support. There were going to be no consultations.

Before I went to Calgary last week to talk with my federal and provincial counterparts, I wrote to the federal minister and my provincial counterparts and said that income support absolutely had to be a part of those discussions. I'm very thankful that with the support of my provincial colleagues now, with the consultations that will be coming out from the federal government, there will be an opportunity for our producers to give them their opinion on how we can improve income support for farmers in Ontario.

PETITIONS

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Mr. Bill Murdoch (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas, according to the Department of National Defence, there are over 30,000 serving military personnel calling Ontario home; and

"Whereas, according to the most recent census data, there are more than 1.6 million senior citizens over the age of 65 living in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario plans on eliminating this illegitimate tax for all Ontarians after it forms the government in 2007; and

"Whereas, as an interim measure, the illegitimate health tax should be removed from those who protect Canada and those who have built Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, call on the government of Ontario to immediately eliminate the illegitimate health tax, beginning with serving military personnel and senior citizens."

I've also signed this.

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to request that the late show I had scheduled for this evening be rescheduled for next Tuesday, November 28, to coincide with the availability of the Minister of Energy.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Yakabuski has requested that it be deferred, and it's agreed.

MACULAR DEGENERATION

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the government of Ontario's health insurance plan covers treatments for one form of macular degeneration (wet), and there are other forms of macular degeneration (dry) that are not covered,

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario as follows:

"There are thousands of Ontarians who suffer from macular degeneration, resulting in loss of sight if treatment is not pursued. Treatment costs for this disease are astronomical for most individuals and add a financial burden to their lives. Their only alternative is loss of sight. We believe the government of Ontario should cover treatment for all forms of macular degeneration through the Ontario health insurance program."

I affix my name in full support.

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly with regard to access to trades and professions in Ontario. I'd especially like to thank Tarzia Ahmed and Paula Arruda, both of Mississauga, for their efforts in collecting the signatures. It reads as follows:

"Whereas Ontario enjoys the continuing benefit of the contributions of men and women who choose to leave their country of origin in order to settle in Canada, raise their families, educate their children and pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

"Whereas newcomers to Canada who choose to settle in Ontario find frequent, arbitrary and unnecessary obstacles that prevent skilled tradespeople, professional and managerial talent from practising the professions, trades and occupations for which they have been trained in their country of origin; and

"Whereas action by Ontario's trades and professions could remove many such barriers, but Ontario's trades and professions have failed to recognize that such structural barriers exist, much less to take action to remove them, and to provide fair, timely, transparent and cost-effective access to trades and professions for new Canadians trained outside Canada;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario Legislative Assembly urge the members of all parties to swiftly pass Bill 124, the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, 2006, and to require Ontario's regulated professions and trades to review and modify their procedures and qualification requirements to swiftly meet the needs of Ontario's employers, Ontario's newcomers and their own membership, all of whom desperately need the very skills new Canadians bring working for their organizations, for their trades and professions, and for their families."

This is an excellent petition. I'm pleased to sign and support it and to ask page Eshan to carry it.

PROSTATE CANCER

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham, which reads as follows:

"Whereas prostate specific antigen (PSA) tests are frequently used to screen patients for prostate conditions, including cancer; and

"Whereas there is currently a double standard because men usually pay to have a PSA test as part of a routine medical examination, while women have all cancer screening tests covered by OHIP;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the province of Ontario to review its policy on funding PSA testing for men with a view to including this as a service wholly covered by OHIP."

I'm pleased to sign this in support of the petitioners and present it to Simon.

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I have a petition on access to trades and professions in Ontario. I want to thank the staff and clients of the Peel Multicultural Council, of Mississauga, for this petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario enjoys the continuing benefit of the contributions of men and women who choose to leave their country of origin in order to settle in Canada, raise their families, educate their children and pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

"Whereas newcomers to Canada who choose to settle in Ontario find frequent, arbitrary and unnecessary obstacles that prevent skilled tradespeople, professional and managerial talent from practising the professions, trades and occupations for which they have been trained in their country of origin; and

"Whereas action by Ontario's trades and professions could remove many such barriers, but Ontario's trades and professions have failed to recognize that such structural barriers exist, much less to take action to remove them, and to provide fair, timely, transparent and cost-effective access to trades and professions for new Canadians trained outside Canada;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario Legislative Assembly urge the members of all parties to swiftly pass Bill 124, the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, 2006, and to require Ontario's regulated professions and trades to review and modify their procedures and qualification requirements to swiftly meet the needs of Ontario's employers, Ontario's newcomers and their own membership, all of whom desperately need the very skills new Canadians bring working for their organizations, for their trades and professions, and for their families."

I agree with this petition. I will affix my signature to it and give it to page Ian.

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe—Grey): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Sir Frederick Banting was the man who discovered insulin and was Canada's first Nobel Prize recipient; and

"Whereas this great Canadian's original homestead, located in the town of New Tecumseth, is deteriorating and in danger of destruction because of the inaction of the Ontario Historical Society; and

"Whereas the town of New Tecumseth has been unsuccessful in reaching an agreement with the Ontario Historical Society to use part of the land to educate the public about the historical significance of the work of Sir Frederick Banting;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Minister of Culture endorse Simcoe—Grey MPP Jim Wilson's private member's bill entitled the Frederick Banting Homestead Preservation Act so that the homestead is kept in good repair and preserved for generations to come."

I agree with this petition, obviously, and I sign it. I want to thank the Toronto Sun for doing a full-page story on this, a week ago Sunday.

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh): I have a petition.

"In Support of Skilled Immigrants -- Bill 124

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the McGuinty government is committed to establishing measures that will break down barriers for Ontario newcomers; and

"Whereas these measures will ensure that the 34 regulatory professions in Ontario have admissions and application practices that are fair, clear and open; and

"Whereas these measures will include the establishment of a fairness commissioner and an access centre for internationally trained individuals; and

"Whereas, through providing a fair and equitable system, newcomers will be able to apply their global experience, which will not only be beneficial to their long-term career goals but also to the Ontario economy as a whole;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That all members of the House support the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, 2006, Bill 124, and work to ensure its prompt passage in the Ontario Legislature."

I agree with this position and I will send this to the table with Mackenzie.

HIGHWAY 26

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe—Grey): I'll be quick.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the redevelopment of Highway 26 was approved by MPP Jim Wilson and the previous PC government in 2000; and

"Whereas a number of horrific fatalities and accidents have occurred on the old stretch of Highway 26; and

"Whereas the redevelopment of Highway 26 is critical to economic development and job creation in Simcoe—Grey;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Liberal government stop the delay of the Highway 26 redevelopment and act immediately to ensure that the project is finished on schedule, to improve safety for area residents and provide economic development opportunities and job creation in Simcoe—Grey."

Of course, I agree with that petition, and I want to thank page Sarah B. for bringing it to the table.

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

Mr. David Zimmer (Willowdale): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly regarding access to trades and professions in Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario enjoys the continuing benefit of the contributions of men and women who choose to leave their country of origin in order to settle in Canada, raise their families, educate their children and pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

"Whereas newcomers to Canada who choose to settle in Ontario find frequent, arbitrary and unnecessary obstacles that prevent skilled tradespeople, professional and managerial talent from practising the professions, trades and occupations for which they have been trained in their country of origin;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario Legislative Assembly urge the members of all parties to swiftly pass Bill 124, the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, 2006."

I'm pleased to attach my signature.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario proposes to make Highway 401 improvements from 0.5 km west of Regional Road 8 to 0.5 km east of Regional Road 24 ... which includes short-term improvements ... primarily consisting of widening the 401 ... from six to eight lanes, installing high-mast illumination along the outside lanes of the ... 401, and mid- to long-term improvements ... primarily consisting of widening the ... 401 from eight to 10 lanes; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation/Ministry of the Environment noise protocol indicates that the Ministry of Transportation would consider noise mitigation if there is a 5 dBA increase in sound levels and the sound level is greater than 55 dBA; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation noise policy QST A-1 indicates that candidate sites for noise barrier retrofit must be in a noise-sensitive area next to a provincial freeway, must be ground-level outdoor leisure areas and residential properties, must have average noise levels of more than 60 dBA, and barrier implementation must be on MTO right-of-way and provide a reduction in noise of at least 5 dBA; and

"Whereas the city of Cambridge official plan amendment ... 1981-2001, in a sound level field test results report dated June 7, 1990, by Norbert Friedel, P.Eng., on the location of a site for a proposed Automation Tooling Systems plant on Royal York Road which was eventually constructed, found that 'Royal Oak Road and Speedville Road (across from Arriscraft plant) had noise level readings of 65-75 dBA with no traffic in the vicinity, approximately 450 feet from the proposed site noise level readings of 55-65 dBA from ambient noise from Highway 401 and Royal Oak Road and in front of site on Royal Oak Road (30 feet from Royal Oak Road) noise reading levels of 60-90 dBA, and that sound level increased and decreased with traffic and trucks were the greatest source of noise'; and ...

"Whereas the undersigned find the 'modelling' study completed by URS Canada Inc. for the Ministry of Transportation to be inadequate and ill-advised, in attempting to address the concerns of the undersigned and the real conditions and consequences of the proposed improvements to Highway 401; and

"Whereas the opportunity to improve the safety and effectiveness of Highway 401 in the area proposed can also remediate air quality concerns, light pollution problems and escalating noise and health concerns, and can best be accomplished in terms of cost and access ... ;

"Therefore, the citizens of Ontario included in the undersigned request that the government of Ontario address the concerns arising from this expansion of Highway 401, which adversely affects the quality of life of the undersigned with respect to air quality, light pollution and noise levels, and request of its government ministries and agents to take steps and measures to alleviate the problems to improve the living conditions of the undersigned."

As I agree with that petition, I sign my name too.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe—Grey): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the parents of St. Paul's elementary school in Alliston have raised many issues regarding the security, cleanliness and state of repair of their school; and

"Whereas a 2003 condition assessment completed by the Ontario government identified the need for $1.8 million in repairs to St. Paul's elementary school; and

"Whereas the Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board has approached the Ministry of Education with the intention of having the school deemed prohibitive to repair as they believe the school requires $2.28 million in repairs, or 84% of the school replacement cost; and

"Whereas there are ongoing concerns with air quality, heating and ventilation, electrical, plumbing, lack of air conditioning and the overall structure of the building, including cracks from floor to ceiling, to name a few;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Minister of Education immediately deem St. Paul's elementary school prohibitive to repair, secure immediate funding and begin construction of a new facility so that the children of St. Paul's can be educated in a facility that is secure and offers them the respect and dignity that they deserve."

I agree with this petition, and I want to thank Milva Biffis and Gaynor McLeary for sending it to me. I'd just note again that my mother taught at the school for 33 years and I went to school there.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the McGuinty government realizes that schools cannot only be places of education but the centre and heartbeat of a community; and

"Whereas the McGuinty government is committed to the education and the future prosperity of Ontario's students; and

"Whereas the McGuinty government is committed to a safe and healthy environment for all Ontario's students; and

"Whereas a good work and learning environment improves productivity and creativity; and

"Whereas the McGuinty government has invested $1 billion in funding the construction of new schools;

"We, the undersigned, applaud the McGuinty government for protecting and enhancing the learning environment of all Ontario's students, ensuring the future potential of children all across this province."

I agree with this petition, I affix my signature to it and I give it to page Shannon, who's here with me today.

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I have petitions provided to me by Pharmacy on Main and Preston Medical Pharmacy in the city of Cambridge:

"Whereas the McGuinty government passed the Transparent Drug System for Patients Act; and

"Whereas, as a result of the regulations under the act, generic drug companies are required to supply drugs at the cost prescribed by the government; and

"Whereas the pharmacists are required to purchase the drugs at prices set by the generic companies and the government's new formulary does not fully reimburse pharmacists for the cost of those drugs; and

"Whereas the government has removed the 'cost to operator' provisions; and

"Whereas the pharmacists are forced to either lose money or bill patients for the actual cost of the drugs; and

"Whereas the viability of small and independent pharmacists is being threatened through the government's actions by regulation; and

"Whereas many pharmacies in smaller cities, towns and villages in Ontario rely on manufacturers' rebates to remain economically viable and the government is proceeding to abolish those rebates;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"That the McGuinty government immediately reinstate manufacturers' rebates and return to the 'cost to operator' provision, thereby guaranteeing affordable access to medications for all patients."

As I agree with this petition, I affix my name to it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER /

RAPPORT, COMMISSAIRE À L'INTÉGRITÉ

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I move that the Legislative Assembly accept the report of the Integrity Commissioner dated October 25, 2006, and approve the recommendation contained therein.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to make a few brief comments on what I think is a very important matter that I think may have received less attention from all of us than it should, not so much because of the particular facts of the matter or because of the particular finding of the Integrity Commissioner in this case with respect to those facts, but rather with respect to a much broader principle that he spoke to in the reasons that accompany his decision in this matter.

I should say at the outset that I had the privilege of getting to know Mrs. Russo very well in the course of her travails. She's a person of immense courage. In fact, I was one of the honorary chairs of her walk last year to raise money for people with a disability caused by the kinds of circumstances in which she found herself. I should say as well that the commissioner, in writing his report, acknowledged that the member for Leeds—Grenville, in the comments he made inside and outside the House, said that Mrs.

Russo deserved to be compensated, and furthermore, the Integrity Commissioner went on to say, in making his findings, that he said it within the context of, and I quote his words, "however well-intentioned or well-intended the comments of the member for Leeds—Grenville may have been."

But it's not my place to stand here and really deal with any of that.

It is to deal with something that I think we have to, and I think we run the risk, even in having a motion as simple as the one moved a moment ago by my friend the government House leader, of accepting as precedent, as what I'll call law or the rules as they should apply or convention going forward, the principle that seems to be embodied in the Integrity Commissioner's reasons; namely, that we are going to accept the regime pursuant to which a member of this Legislature in fact has fewer rights within the context of their role as MPP outside the House to speak about matters pertaining to things that are going on inside the justice system.

I think that is a very serious matter.

I happen to personally believe that the Integrity Commissioner, with the greatest of respect to that honourable gentleman, may have overstepped his bounds in making that kind of apparent ruling as to how the rules inside this House with regard to sub judice impact or don't impact on the rights of MPPs to say whatever they wish to say outside the House. As we all know, there are very clear rules in place under the common law with respect to sub judice that apply to all citizens.

There are further rules, for example, that apply to me and to other members of this House as members of the Law Society of Upper Canada, part of the rules of professional conduct that deal with what you're allowed and not allowed to say with respect to matters that are before the court inside public office and outside the Legislature.

But the notion that you would create a different class of citizen when you walk out of this House and suggest that somehow there are potentially two sets of rules that apply to members of provincial Parliament, one that applies to all other citizens and the other that in effect imposes some sort of external application of a parliamentary convention on MPPs with respect to their freedom to comment on these matters to the media and otherwise is certainly something th